instrument_profile

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful workflow context (this is a mandatory first step whose output should be shared downstream), but says nothing about error behavior for invalid or ambiguous tickers, whether lookups hit a network service, or whether results are point-in-time. The output schema exists, so return-shape disclosure is not required.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the ordering directive and a clean Args block with concrete examples. The clause "so none of them confuse the company with another" is mild rationale padding, but the rest is dense with no wasted sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter resolver with an output schema, the description supplies purpose, invocation ordering, and full parameter formats. It is nearly complete; the missing piece is guidance on handling an unresolved or ambiguous ticker, which matters for a tool whose whole job is disambiguation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it largely does: it explains that ticker is a Yahoo Finance symbol with exchange suffix and gives four worked examples across US, India, HK, UK and crypto formats, and it explains as_of as a YYYY-MM-DD analysis date defaulting to today. The only gap is what a historical as_of actually changes about the classification result.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ("Identify") and enumerates exactly what is resolved: company name and classification, the exact ticker to use, and asset type (stock vs crypto). That level of specificity makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like market_snapshot or price_history, which consume an already-known ticker rather than resolving it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Call this first, and give the result to every agent" is explicit sequencing and propagation guidance, which is exactly the when-to-use context an agent needs for a resolver tool. It stops short of stating failure conditions or what to do if the ticker is ambiguous/unknown, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.